Thursday, December 13, 2012

People love to claim that if you don’t support their brand of socialism, then
you hate poor people, are racist, are sexist, and are the general embodiment of
everything wrong with society. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. The
best thing possible for the poor is for us to shift money from welfare to
charity, because the poor get far more through private charity.

When you account for all of the political corruption, the government waste,
the over-sized government salaries, the redundancy, the paperwork, the special
interests, and other factors, only 30% of government “welfare” spending
goes to the needy.Private charity is the opposite, with over
70% going to the needy. So much for “hating the poor”.

That means private charity is 150%
more efficient than the welfare state. If you account for all of
the government spending that is pure waste with nothing to do with the poor, you
begin to see exactly why we hate the massive federal government. The
government is making people poorer, not helping them to the middle
class.

I honestly have no doubt that many people will claim that we secretly hate
the poor, even
if the facts prove the opposite. But the facts stand on their own. As
Christmas is nearing, the left will likely be screaming louder and louder in
favor of more government so that the feds will become a million-man Santa
army.

But this wouldn’t be the best for those who need it. The best thing for them
are people like you and I taking personal interest, donating our money and time,
and making sure the right people get the money. That means responsibility — not
forcing someone else to “take care” of the problem.

I think, deep down, most people know this. That’s why people give to private
charity during the holiday season, and don’t give extra money to the IRS. We
know what’s necessary to help those who need it — we just have to have the guts
to stand up for them — and private charity — when it counts. And that means
fighting the welfare state.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions
pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV
reports.

According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in
multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in
Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.

Reports say the troops include US Army officers and almost 17,000 more
are set to secretly return to Iraq via the same route.

All US troops left Iraq by the end of 2011, after nine years of occupation,
as required by a 2008 bilateral security agreement between the two countries.
The troops left Iraq for the neighboring Kuwait.

Instability in Egypt, where a newly-elected Islamic government teeters over
an angry population, isn't enough to stop the U.S. from sending more than 20
F-16 fighter jets, as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package.

The first four jets are to be delivered to Egypt beginning Jan. 22, a source
at the naval air base in Fort Worth, where the planes have been undergoing
testing, told FoxNews.com. The North African nation already has a fleet of more
than 200 of the planes and the latest shipment merely fulfills an order placed
two years ago. But given the uncertainty in Cairo, some critics wonder if it is
wise to be sending more top gun planes.

“Should an overreaction [by Egypt] spiral into a broader conflict between
Egypt and Israel, such a scenario would put U.S. officials in an embarrassing
position of having supplied massive amounts of military hardware … to both
belligerents,” said Malou Innocent, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato
Institute. “Given Washington's fiscal woes, American taxpayers should no longer
be Egypt’s major arms supplier.”

The U.S. government ordered
and paid for the
fighter jets for Egypt's military as part of foreign aid for Egypt back in 2010,
when Hosni Mubarak ruled. The fighter jets were supposed to be delivered in
2013, and delivery will go ahead as scheduled even though Hosni Mubarak has been
removed from power and replaced by Mohamed Morsi, who led the Muslim Brotherhood
before becoming Egypt's president.

"The Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government has not proven to be a partner
for democracy as they had promised, given the recent attempted power grab," a
senior Republican congressional aide told FoxNews.com.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (R-Fla.), who chairs the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, recently criticized U.S.
military aid to Egypt:

“The Obama administration wants to simply throw money at an Egyptian
government that the president cannot even clearly state is an ally of the United
States,” Rep. Ros-Lehtinen said.

The $213 million order, which is paid for by U.S. taxpayers and is part of
Egypt's foreign aid package from America, had to be approved by lawmakers in
Washington.While the basic F-16 has been a military workhorse for top air forces
for more than 25 years, the cockpit electronics are constantly updated and the
models Egypt is getting are the best defense contractor Lockheed Martin
makes.

"We remain committed to providing our customer with a proven, advanced
4th Generation multirole fighter."
"In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and combat radius exceed
that of all potential threat fighter aircraft," the U.S. Air Force description of the
plane reads.

"The F-16 can fly more than 500 miles, deliver its weapons
with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its
starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver
ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions."

A Pentagon spokesman said the U.S. and Egypt have an important alliance that
is furthered by the transfer.

"The U.S.-Egypt defense relationship has served as the cornerstone of our
broader strategic partnership for over thirty years," said Lt. Col. Wesley
Miller. "The delivery of the first set of F-16s in January 2013 reflects the
U.S. commitment to supporting the Egyptian military's modernization efforts.
Egyptian acquisition of F-16s will increase our militaries' interoperability,
and enhance Egypt's capacity to contribute to regional mission sets."

Monday, December 10, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has
some harsh words for rural America: It's "becoming less and less relevant," he
says.

A month after an election that Democrats won even as rural
parts of the country voted overwhelmingly Republican, the former Democratic
governor of Iowa told farm belt leaders this past week that he's frustrated with
their internecine squabbles and says they need to be more strategic in picking
their political fights.

"It's time for us to have an adult conversation with folks
in rural America," Vilsack said in a speech at a forum sponsored by the Farm
Journal. "It's time for a different thought process here, in my view."

He said rural America's biggest assets - the food supply,
recreational areas and energy, for example - can be overlooked by people
elsewhere as the U.S. population shifts more to cities, their suburbs and
exurbs.

"Why is it that we don't have a farm bill?" said Vilsack.
"It isn't just the differences of policy. It's the fact that rural America with
a shrinking population is becoming less and less relevant to the politics of
this country, and we had better recognize that and we better begin to reverse
it."

For the first time in recent memory, farm-state lawmakers
were not able to push a farm bill through Congress in an election year, evidence
of lost clout in farm states.

The Agriculture Department says about 50 percent of rural
counties have lost population in the past four years and poverty rates are
higher there than in metropolitan areas, despite the booming agricultural
economy.

Exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television
networks found that rural voters accounted for just 14 percent of the turnout in
last month's election, with 61 percent of them supporting Republican Mitt Romney
and 37 percent backing President Barack Obama. Two-thirds of those rural voters
said the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and
individuals.

Vilsack criticized farmers who have embraced wedge issues
such as regulation, citing the uproar over the idea that the Environmental
Protection Agency was going to start regulating farm dust after the Obama
administration said repeatedly it had no so such intention.

In his Washington speech, he also cited criticism of a
proposed Labor Department regulation, later dropped, that was intended to keep
younger children away from the most dangerous farm jobs, and criticism of egg
producers for dealing with the Humane Society on increasing the space that hens
have in their coops. Livestock producers fearing they will be the next target of
animal rights advocates have tried to undo that agreement.

"We need a proactive message, not a reactive message,"
Vilsack said. "How are you going to encourage young people to want to be
involved in rural America or farming if you don't have a proactive message? Because you are competing against the world now."

John Weber, a pork producer in Dysart, Iowa, said Friday
that farmers have to defend their industries against policies they see as
unfair. He said there is great concern among pork producers that animal welfare
groups are using unfair tactics and may hurt their business.

"Our role is to defend our producers and our industry in
what we feel are issues important to us," he said.

Weber agreed, though, that rural America is declining in
influence. He said he is concerned that there are not enough lawmakers from
rural areas and complained that Congress doesn't understand farm issues. He
added that the farm industry needs to communicate better with consumers.

"There's a huge communication gap" between farmers and the
food-eating public, he said.

Vilsack, who has made the revitalization of rural America a
priority, encouraged farmers to embrace new kinds of markets, work to promote
global exports and replace a "preservation mindset with a growth mindset." He
said they also need to embrace diversity because it is an issue important to
young people who are leaving rural areas.

"We've got something to market here," he said. "We've got
something to be proactive about. Let's spend our time and our resources and our
energy doing that and I think if we do we're going to have a lot of young people
who want to be part of that future."

Friday, December 07, 2012

As I described in my post on "The Role of Government", if we truly wish to take care of America's poor and needy, it must be done through charity.

Progressive taxation aimed at redistributing wealth to the needy is well
intentioned, but eventually succeeds only in destroying wealth and creating
poverty.

Economic policies that
lead to wealth creation and encouraging charitable
giving through tax credits not only result in more effective social assistance,
but guarantee the sustainability of that assistance.

Characterized as "loopholes", tax credits for charitable giving now find themselves on the chopping block in the infamous fiscal cliff negotiations.

Their proposals would not only negatively affect charities, but colleges, universities and hospitals as well. Donations are the primary source of income for most charities and because these donations are encouraged through resulting tax credits, removing this incentive would likely be devastating to charities and non-profits who often receive a third to half of their annual donations in the month of December as people begin to think about
income taxes and the need for deductions.

Colleges
received just over $30 billion in donations in 2011, and the largest gifts most
colleges receive are typically made with awareness of tax benefits.

“There’s
just no question that it will hurt charitable giving.” - Charles Phlegar,
vice president for alumni affairs and development at Cornell University

The
deduction for charitable giving costs about $52 billion in tax revenue per year, but the assistance it provides to America's poor and needy is immeasurable!!!

Monday, December 03, 2012

I’ve always hated the phrase, “increasing revenue”. From a business perspective,
increasing revenue is a good thing. From a governmental perspective, “increasing
revenue” usually means “increasing taxe rates”, which to the American taxpayers
is NEVER a good thing. I will always call it what it is…”increased taxes”.

There
is another way to “increase revenue”; however, without increasing tax rates. It
involves creating wealth in the private sector which increases the pool of
taxpayers. THIS is the type of increased revenue we should be pursuing.

Spending cuts (and tax rate increases) won’t begin to solve the
problem. Spending cuts only involve cuts in the amount of increase in spending planned, not actual spending cuts. And asking more from the wealthy is only a drop in the bucket, it
get’s us nowhere.

As Warren Buffett admitted, the plan to ask more from the wealthy is nothing more than a morale
boost to the poor (aka: a big screw you to the wealthy). This meaningless class
warfare gets us nowhere. If we don’t pursue policies of increasing revenue
through wealth creation (including slashing corporate and income tax rates) and
deregulation…we will never get out from behind the eight-ball.

If the only bill that will be on the table in these "fiscal cliff" talks, is a bill that involves
“increased revenue” through increased taxes rates, then I don’t think the Republicans should have any part of it.
We currently have guaranteed cuts in spending (through sequestration) coming
already. Let the democrats own the tax rate increases just as they own obamacare
(which is equating to large middle-class tax increases, premium increases, job
loss, price inflation, along with the diminishing of the quality of healthcare
in this country).

If Republicans cave and become complicit in these tax increases, the dems
will surely (and I hope they do) use those votes against the Republicans when
they run for re-election. I will too!!!

We got ourselves into a huge mess here, and just as I would be forced to make
some painful sacrifices to get out from under huge credit card debt I wa
responsible for running up…Americans will have to make some painful sacrifices
to get out of this debt we ran up. We lived beyond our means and now it is time
to pay the price. Everyone is pointing to everyone else to make those
sacrifices.

“Ask more from the wealthy”

“I don’t want to lose my entitlements”

Bottom line…we are all in this together (both Republicans and Democrats ran up
the debt this past decade) and it will take sacrifice from ALL of us to get
out!!! EVERYTHING has to be on the table. Defense,
entitlements, and even Obamacare (a massive espense). And we need to increase
revenue by seeking wealth creation in our private sector.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

As explained in a recent NY Times editorial, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New
School originally testified before the House Committee on Education & Labor
in 2008. Her plan explained below has begun picking up traction among
lawmakers. Under Ghilarducci's plan, tax free contributions to private retirement accounts
would be eliminated and money currently located in private 401(k)s would be
seized by federal edict and used to establish government run pensions she
refers to as Guarantee Retirement Accounts (GRA's). The funds would be placed
with the terribly mismanaged Social Security Administration. You would then be
required to surrender 5% of your pay into the GRA's until you retire. If you
die before collecting the money, it goes to Washington rather than your heirs,
even if you worked hard and did a fantastic job of saving and investing your
hard earned money. Failure to comply would be punishable by fines and jail
time. Ghilarducci's congressional testimony can be seen here.

The Problem

Many Americans have chosen or have not been able to contribute enough money to
private retirement accounts. Couple that with unfunded public pensions, a
failing social security fund, and devastating effects of the economic downturn
on 401(k)s, and we are left witha large
number of Americans nearing retirement without any way to fund it.

Class WarfareLiberals have derided the fact that only half of Americans own and actively manage their 401(k)s. Of that 50%, very
few are able to contribute the maximum 17% allowing them to take full advantage
of the tax breaks. They claim private retirement accounts favor the wealthy and
demand seizure of 401(k)s in the name of economic justice!

Why Now?

The government has found itself underwater and the leg cramps are beginning to
set in. Realizing Washington is missing out on an estimated $50 - $70 billion dollars worth of tax revenue each year; officials have introduced
plans to end those tax credits, initially offered to encourage savings by
individuals. (*Note: Many liberals will claim a higher estimate, intentionally
assuming that all 401(k) money is invested in bonds when in reality, two thirds
of 401(k) assets are invested in equities where gains are taxed only when
realized and both dividends and gains are taxed at a preferential rate of at
most 15 percent.)

Realizing that $50 - $70 billion dollars is only
a drop in the bucket of our $1 trillion dollar + annual deficit, officials are
considering extending their plot to include seizing private 401(k)s to purchase
government bonds in order to cushion the government's spending problem.

The Cold Hard Truth

"The government is making a play to suck the last bit of capital from capitalism." - Rush Limbaugh

There is no arguing that America
faces a looming crisis as the 401(k) generation nears a significantly
underfunded retirement. The question is what should be done about it?
Does a government that promised tax free contributions have a right to renege
on that promise? Does a government that encouraged private savings have a
right to turn around and seize the fruits of one's labor to help alleviate the
problem they created? Does anyone really
believe that the government would do a better job looking out for your
retirement than you would? The
government has already spent and bankrupted our saving in the social security
trust fund?

Should reform start by addressing
WHY American's have not been willing or able to contribute to their 401(k)s?

There is no question that reform is necessary! The question is...how should
that reform look?

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal
entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging
outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail
exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I
predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That
prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse
economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening
recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in
1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At
the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI
registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The
Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic
to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a
calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the
prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in
1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in
real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost
10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average
lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic
program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax ratesto restore incentives for economic growth, which
was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to
50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for
everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two
rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981,
close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion
in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense
discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from
1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary
spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!
Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a
shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to
21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of
government relative to the economy of 10%.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in
lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price
controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong
dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment
in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November
1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax
increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the
longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58
months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the
equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in
the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth
boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were
created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.
Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in
inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly,
inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut
in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently.
The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation
inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did
not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning
the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years.
The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth
from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a
larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall
Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this
Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by
shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period
of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets
minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in
today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting
for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom
than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the
opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax
rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually
every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top
two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed
deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new
Obamacare taxes going into effect that year. The total tax rate on corporate
dividends would increase by nearly three times. The Medicare payroll tax would
increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors. The death tax rate
would go back up to 55%. In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget
speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act
was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his first two years in office he has
already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to
increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well. Instead of restraining the
money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic
inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably
creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from
health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere. While Reagan used to say that
his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can
be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to
Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the
first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at
2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the
Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to
7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven
quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage
points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with
the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession
started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period
of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic
precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic
recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the
stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past
the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen
for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of
Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been
recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation,
for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the
less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the
latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the
latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last
couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst
economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. This is the worst
“recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully
phased in. Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his
historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective. While the
Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite
policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic
stagnation, unless reversed?

Peter Ferrara is director of policy for the Carleson Center for Public
Policy and senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at the Heartland
Institute. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under
President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States
under President George H. W. Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking
Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins.

Monday, November 26, 2012

“Obama is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto
without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality
mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to
follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in
Russia.

Obama had NO strategy for economic success but nevertheless was
re-elected by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of
less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the
world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his
next war with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Bye,
bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in
America with Obama. America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake. Any normal
individual understands that liberalism is a psychosis.”

By Xavier Lerma - 11/19/2012

Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy
for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was
re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama
but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the
vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as
President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to
repeat the Soviet mistake.

After Obama was elected in his first term as
president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the
West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world
economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd
term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes
while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he
promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with
Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Putin said regarding the military,

"...instead of solving the problem,
militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy
immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more
efficiently elsewhere."

Well, any normal individual understands that as
true but liberalism is a
psychosis . O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with
projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it.

He is
a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling
it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who
cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those
fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's
fools share the same drink of illusion.

Reading Putin's speech without knowing the
author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in
America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no
surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to
say:

"...we are reducing taxes on production,
investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be
excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute
faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by
putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better
results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget
deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an
adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the
role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the
total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am
sure no one would want history to repeat itself."

President Vladimir Putin could never have
imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama
much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in
America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the
Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their
Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him
and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment
rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his
agenda.

"We must seek support in the moral values
that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work,
responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."-
Vladimir Putin

The red, white and blue still flies happily but
only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol
of the cross on its' flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would
never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against
religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the
U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when
religious symbols were against the law.

Let's give American voters the benefit of the
doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing
a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there
was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we'll say it's true that the
Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote.
Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped
put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post,
residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites
States. We'll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power.
How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?

Russia lost its' civil war with the Reds and
millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the
United Soviet Socialist
Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever
growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the
Free" remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only
begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie! You know the song you hippies. Sing it! Don't
you remember? The 1971 hit song by American song writer Don McLean:

"And, as I watched him on the stage
my hands were clenched in fists of rage.

No angel born in Hell could break
that Satan's spell

And, as the flames climbed high into
the night to light the sacrificial rite, I saw...